The 2018 Merit-based Incentive Payment System: Participation, Performance, and Payment Across Specialties

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry: Structure, Use, and Limitations for Research

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) is a qualified clinical data registry that collects data from participating emergency departments (EDs) in the United States for quality measurement, improvement, and reporting purposes. This article aims to provide an overview of the data collection and validation process, describe the existing data structure and elements, and explain the potential opportunities and limitations for ongoing and future research use. CEDR data are primarily collected for quality reporting purposes and are obtained from diverse sources, including electronic health records and billing data that are de-identified and stored in a secure, centralized database. The CEDR data structure is organized around clinical episodes, which contain multiple data elements that are standardized using common data elements and are mapped to established terminologies to enable interoperability and data sharing. The data elements include patient demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic and treatment procedures, and outcomes. Key limitations include the limited generalizability due to the selective nature of participating EDs and the limited validation and completeness of data elements not currently used for quality reporting purposes, including demographic data. Nonetheless, CEDR holds great potential for ongoing and future research in emergency medicine due to its large-volume, longitudinal, near real-time, clinical data. In 2021, the American College of Emergency Physicians authorized the transition from CEDR to the Emergency Medicine Data Institute, which will catalyze investments in improved data quality and completeness for research to advance emergency care.

Performance of Neurosurgeons Providing Safety-Net Care Under Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), Medicare evaluates provider performance to determine payment adjustments. Studies examining the first year of MIPS (2017) showed that safety-net providers had lower MIPS scores, but the performance of safety-net physicians over time has not been studied. This study aimed to examine the performance of safety-net vs non-safety-net neurosurgeons in MIPS from 2017 to 2020.

METHODS

Safety-net neurosurgeons were defined as being in the top quartile according to proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries and non-safety-net in the bottom quartile. Outcomes were total MIPS scores and dual-eligible proportion over time. In this descriptive study, we evaluated ordinary least squares regression models with SEs clustered at the physician level. Covariates of interest included safety-net status, year, and average Hierarchical Condition Category risk score of beneficiaries.

RESULTS

There were 2796-3322 physicians included each year between 2017 and 2020. Mean total MIPS scores were not significantly different for safety-net than non-safety-net physicians in 2017 but were greater for safety-net in 2018 (90.7 vs 84.5, P < .01), 2019 (86.4 vs 81.5, P < .01), and 2020 (90.9 vs 86.7, P < .01). Safety-net status (coefficient -9.11; 95% CI [-13.15, -5.07]; P < .01) and participation in MIPS as an individual (-9.89; [-12.66, -7.13]; P < .01) were associated with lower scores while year, the interaction between safety-net status and year, and participation in MIPS as a physician group or alternative payment model were associated with higher scores. Average Hierarchical Condition Category risk score of beneficiaries (-.011; [-.015, -.006]; P < .01) was associated with decreasing dual-eligible case mix, whereas average age of beneficiaries (.002; [.002, .003]; P < .01) was associated with increasing dual-eligible case mix.

CONCLUSION

Being a safety-net physician was associated with lower MIPS scores, but safety-net neurosurgeons demonstrated greater improvement in MIPS scores than non-safety-net neurosurgeons over time. Providers with higher-risk patients were more likely to decrease their dual-eligible case mix over time.

Acquisition of Urology Practices by Private Equity Firms and Performance in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System

INTRODUCTION

Private equity is increasingly engaged in the acquisition of urology practices. The implications of strategies to enhance practice value deployed by these firms for patients are unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of urologist performance in the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) program for 2017 to 2020 using national Medicare data from the Quality Payment Program file. The primary outcome was the overall MIPS score. Secondary outcomes included MIPS component scores (ie, quality, interoperability, improvement activities, cost) and the percentage of urologists receiving a bonus payment. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the relationship between private equity acquisition and outcomes using a difference-in-differences framework.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, 181 urologists were in a urology practice acquired by private equity with MIPS data available the year before and after acquisition. Compared to urologists in practices not acquired by private equity, those in acquired practices had worse overall MIPS performance after acquisition (difference-in-differences estimate, -14 points, P = .04). The decrease in the overall score was driven by worse performance in the quality score (difference-in-differences estimate, -28 points, P < .001). Finally, acquisition resulted in a decrease in the percentage of urologists receiving bonus payments (difference-in-differences estimate, -43%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Private equity acquisition of urology practices was associated with significantly lower MIPS performance. As private equity acquisition of urology practices becomes more prevalent, key stakeholders should ensure that the quality of patient care is maintained and that the involvement of for-profit entities in health care is being made transparent to patients.